Jump to content

Talk:1948 Palestine war: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 257: Line 257:


===RfC: Should the three articles have a common prefix?===
===RfC: Should the three articles have a common prefix?===
{{archive-top|result=There is a consensus in favour of a common prefix. There is a clear consensus among involved editors that the current article names are problematic, and among those editors who do see a problem there is clear support for having a common prefix. Some of the opposition was against changing the "1948 Arab–Israeli War" title, but as this discussion was explicitly not about choosing a specific title for any article, there is nothing here preventing that or something similar being used as either a prefix or suffix if that is the consensus view of a subsequent discussion. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)}}

It has been suggested that we break this discussion down into pieces. As a first step, please could editors comment on whether the three articles under discussion here should have a common prefix? Examples of this structure could include:
It has been suggested that we break this discussion down into pieces. As a first step, please could editors comment on whether the three articles under discussion here should have a common prefix? Examples of this structure could include:
* Main article: "[xxxxxx]"; Sub articles: "[xxxxxx] (first phase)" and "[xxxxxx] (second phase)"
* Main article: "[xxxxxx]"; Sub articles: "[xxxxxx] (first phase)" and "[xxxxxx] (second phase)"
Line 279: Line 281:
::::: That division actually is fairly common (dividing the "civil war phase" into an early period (where British control was still strong, and hostilities were more static) and a late period (where British control was very localized to where they did not pull out)), as is the division by the short ceasefires post May 1948.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 03:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
::::: That division actually is fairly common (dividing the "civil war phase" into an early period (where British control was still strong, and hostilities were more static) and a late period (where British control was very localized to where they did not pull out)), as is the division by the short ceasefires post May 1948.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 03:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
::*{{u|Srnec}} Ah, I see. Well, is there some difficulty with adding a hatnote? Not that I think casual users are very likely to land on this page, tbh.I see there was an Rfc here but that it has gone now.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
::*{{u|Srnec}} Ah, I see. Well, is there some difficulty with adding a hatnote? Not that I think casual users are very likely to land on this page, tbh.I see there was an Rfc here but that it has gone now.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 21:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
{{archive-bottom}}

Revision as of 13:24, 25 May 2019


A chart showing the real issue with the page titles

1948 Palestine war
13,600 views in 30 days
The story told by all scholars
1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
8,400 views in 30 days
The first phase		1948 Arab–Israeli War
67,000 views in 30 days
The second phase

The page view stats shown in this chart illustrate the real problem with the article titles – that most readers don’t see the nuanced difference we are discussing between the titles 1948 Palestine War and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. As a result, most traffic goes to the most well-known title, despite it being only half the story and not the main / top-level article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment.
What we could do then is the following :
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good solution. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about organizing a move debate on 1948 Arab-Israeli War ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed solution is bad, since it replaces the subtle distinction between 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1948 Palestine War with an even subtler (and less justifiable) distinction between 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War Zekelayla (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1948 Arab-Israeli War will be a redirect to this article... That's what was asked by you and many others here above. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something with "Arab-Israeli War" in the title should be the top article since that's obviously the most common name and most common search. See above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not for historians. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Historians would know that's the most common search name. MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data about name prevalence

Following is comprehensive data about the prevalence of different names throughout millions of printed publications in English. The data shows that "First Arab-Israeli War" is most common, followed by "Israeli War of Independence". The current title, "1948 Plestine War", is about 6 times less common.

The Google NGram corpus is one of the largest collections in exitsance of English language publications.

Source: Google Ngrams, (Query). Shaferjo (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - query - that Israel's War of Independence is even more prevalent than Israeli War of Independence - surpassing the falling First Arab–Israeli War. The NGRAM data strong supports a move to Israel's War of Independence.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be the correct thing to do now? Should we start a new vote for a name change? Get more people to review this data and voice an opinion? Shaferjo (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would still support "First Arab–Israeli War" as it is the most neutral. It is as popular as Israel's Independence War and Israeli Independence War.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bolter. "First Arab-Israeli War" is more neutral. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. “WarKosign” 07:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with Bolter.--Shrike (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this source and others attest, what Israelis call their War of Independence, the Palestinians call the Nakba.

So the Ngrams chart should also include that term.

Updated query here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with that is that Nakba doesn't refer only to the war or even necessarily to the war, as our Nakba article helpfully points out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile yeah, and "1948 War" wins the battle: [1]. Could we please stop bringing in more things that distract us from the fact that "1948 Palestine War" is by far the least WP:COMMONNAME? I would have loved to use "1948 War", though I prefer "1948 Arab–Israeli War". Historically, the war started on 30 November 1947, but throughout the first month, it was not a war. The war officially ended in July 1949 with the last armistice signed with Syria, but the last millitary action in this war was made in March 1949, but in these three months of 1949 there weren't too many things happening on the battlefield. Just like the War of 1812 lasted until 1815, the "1948 War" lasted from the last month of 1949, to the start or middle of 1949. This is the most common name, used in scholarship, media and propaganda. I prefer "1948 Arab–Israeli War" because it is more spesific and encyclopedic. It is not perfect, but no name is perfect and would satisfy everyone. So please, can we get a consensus here?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a fan of 1948 War as the best solution here. I think your explanation about 1947 and 1949 should go into the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is our next move?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been WP:BOLD and moved the previous 1948 War page to disambiguation and the current one to redirect here. I think we should open a discussion about moving to that name. Like the War of 1812... Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the ngram data, shorter and more general terms will usually have higher prevalence. So "1948 war" would be more common than "1948 Arab-Israeli War" or "1948 War in Mandatory Palestine", because is it is short and not very specific.
There are two ways in which the count for "1948 war" could be too high, counting things that are not relevent here:
* An article that deals with (say) the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" might use that full name once in the begining, and then use the shorthand "1948 war" in most subsequent mentions. So the article would contribute more to the ngram count of "1948 war" even though the author uses that only as a shorthand.
* There might be other contexts in which the phrase "1948 war" appears, with a different referent. The first Kashmir war is probably one such instance, because it also took place during that year. Again, this can inflate the counts of "1948 war" in a misleading way.
Thus, we should only compare phrases that are specific enough and can be considered "full names" for this war (and are suitable as a title).
Goin over the list, we see that:
* "1948 War" is not specific enough (eg first Kashmir war is also in 1948).
* "Nakba" is too POV.
* "Israel's War of independece" is probably less syntactically suitable for a title than "Israeli" (cf. American War of Independence, not "America's").
* "First Arab-Israeli War" is ambiguous becuase there is no universally agreed-upon account of what are the 1st, 2ed, 3rd etc Arab-Israeli wars.
Thus, I would support "1948 Arab-Israeli War" which is the most common among the names listed that meet all the criteria. 71.202.175.213 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word chocolate is more common than any other words suggested here above.
The problem is that the word chocolate does not fit the topic.
So google research on a word does not prove anything.
That exactly the same with the different proposals !
As explained in the lead of the article and explained many times in different talk pages :
  • the First Arab-Israeli War started on 14 May and refers to something else than this article. This article does not just cover the war between Arab States and Israel but the period that started 6 months before.
  • Other names for this period are Israeli War of independence or Nakba which are both totaly equivalent in all aspects: they only take care of 1 point of view and are therefore pov-ed.
  • Numerous historians (WP:RS) and from all sides (WP:NPoV) refer to this period as the 1948 Palestine War, ie the War that took place in Palestine in 1948.
See this chart
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to feel like such comments as you made should render unimportant and ignored. You bring facts without backing them. I've already responded to your list of sources that use "Palestine War", which is full of errors by the way. We have already shown that "1948 Palestine War" is by far the least popular title, and even if it was popular, it still doesn't cancel out other titles. Me and Oncenawhile would like to see "1948 War", but as it seems most users here support either "First Arab–Israeli War" or "1948 Arab–Israeli War". You have an opposing opinion, supporting the current title, but bring it confindently without any regard to the facts.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want other name you should initiate a formal move discussion--Shrike (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should do a series of RM, with only one move option each time. I also think "1948 War" is not specific enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would do well to summarise the arguments for and against the main options (including names for all three articles for each option) first. Otherwise it will be another mess. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter21, you didn't bring any argument but statistics that are not link with the matter as explained with the analogy with 'chocolate'.
A solution was brought here above :
  • 1948 Arab-Israeli war can be a redirect to 1948 Palestine War and 1948 Arab-Israeli war renamed eg 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war or First Arab-Israeli war.
The only problem with that solution is just that it uses the word 'Palestine' and that you (3) have problems with that word.
That's even more proven by the fact there is not ambiguity given the structure of these articles is explained in their lead. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't deny the obvious personal issue with the word "Palestine", but if it wasn't the least popular name, I wouldn't try to change it. It is is a fact that this article gets the least views and it is a fact that books refer to this war as "1948 Palestine War" the least.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't ascertained that "Arab-Israeli war" is more common as a name for the subject of this article vs. "1948 Palestine War", because many of the references to Arab-Israeli War may well have been referring just to the post-1948 period. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We strictly used "1948 Arab–Israeli War".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; my point holds. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1948 Arab-Israeli War does not refer to the topic of the article.
There nothing to understand more than the words: 1948 Arab-Israeli War concerns the war between Arabs [States] and Israel
And when they use this title [most] scholars refer to that. Israel didn't exist before 15 May 1948. Arab states were not involved before 14 May either. 1948 Arab-Israeli War started on May 15. This article refers to an Israeli traditionnal historian referred to as the "forgotten" part of the War.
And so, the 1498 War refers to the whole war that started 5 months sooner. And this is reminded by the references that I gave. The other references provided exist but they refer to a part of it.
As already stated the solutions is to follow scholars on the issue :
  • 1948 Palestine war
    • 1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
    • First Arab-Israeli War
We can make a redirect from 1948 Arab-Israeli War to 1948 Palestine War if contributors feel that people miss these subtilities (which I can understand) and who look for 1948 Palestine War when they type 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
The other point : 1948 Palestine war is very clear, neutral, accurate and fits perfectly the topic.
It refers to the war that took place in [former] Mandatory Palestine for its control (another option would be 1948 War for Palestine). This war is known by the Israelis as their War of Independence and by the Palestinians as a Naqba.
Pluto2012 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arab states were not involved before 14 May either, wrong. The Arab Liberation Army, often refered as the "Arab League's Army", which was comprised mostly by Syrian volunteers, was created by the Arab states and at the end of the civil war phase, before the declaration of independence, was the main Arab belligerent. The Jordanian Legion also took part in the battles before 15 May. And when they use this title [most] scholars refer to that. Prove it please. I used Google's tool and looked at some 60 book references to the title "1948 Arab–Israeli War", and in cases I could confirm, most of them used the term to refer to the entire war, especially where the war or the conflict is the topic of the book.

World War II started in September 1939, but it truely became a World War somewhere in the mid of 1940, when battles were fought in Africa. The "Arab–Israeli War" wasn't always an "Arab-Israeli War", but it eventually became a one, and it is part of the same war.

You have a minority opinion here, and as I see it, you really struggle to face the fact "1948 Palestine War" is the least popular term for the war, and you repeat the same arguments without providing good evidence to back them.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, the ALA is an army of volunteers that was settled by the Arab League (but not Arab States). And it has nothing to deal with the Arab armies that intervened after. What about Israel before 15 May ?
  • No. The majority of the scholarly sources do not refer to the whole war as the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
  • No. I don't have a minority opinion. And the evidence was provided numerous times already form scholars (specialists and focused on that period and from all opinions) here above :
    • Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN 978-1-84519-075-0
    • Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Osprey publishing, 2002.
    • Walid Khalidi, Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War, Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(3), 79, 1998.
    • Saleh Abdel Jawad, The Arab and Palestinian Narratives of the 1948 War, in Robert I. Rotberg, Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict, Indiana University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-253-21857-5.
    • Benny Morris, 1948, Yale University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9
    • Eugene Rogan & Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine — Rewriting the history of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    • David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948. Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge, 2004.
    • Henry Laurens, Palestine, 1948. Les limites de l'interprétation historique, Revue Esprit, 2000.
  • I can add that I have provided sources that discuss the name to give to this war (and the reasons why it is discussed). I can also add that I knew and used these sources much before this discussion. I am not discovering the toping during its discussion in using google to support (luckyly) the point that I defended... Eg:
  • Another reason why the title Arab-Israel War is not right by the way is that it was a much more complex one that the unfamous "7 Arab States vs Israel". They were not less than 5 sides in that war (British - Israel - Palestinians - Jordan - Arab League).
  • Last but not least, I have also provided a solution that fits all points of view, except the one of those who have some problems with the word "Palestine" :
  • 1948 Palestine war
    • 1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
    • First Arab-Israeli War
All other titles redirect to 1948 Palestine war.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter, Pluto, I suggest we don't try to force this discussion through by assessing whose opinion in minority or majority just yet. You both have good, well thought through positions. Rather than going back and forth, a constructive way forward could be to work together to agree on the answer to a few "sub questions", and then present those agreed answers to the community in a final all-emcompassing RFC. The main question I think it would be useful to agree on is:
  • Which names do individual scholars and media organizations use to describe the whole period, and the pre-and post 15 May periods?
Bolter claimed above that Pluto's previous list contained errors. If we focus on getting a list that everyone agrees on, we can then consider that as a community.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a subpage for that purpose: Talk:1948 Palestine war/Name Onceinawhile (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"1948 War" is not specific enough, but what about "1948 War (Palestine)"? This clarifies "1948 War" without making use of the very rare term "1948 Palestine War". I continue to favor "Israeli War of Independence", but I think "1948 War (Palestine)" is a good compromise.Zekelayla (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No - because the significant phases of the war, from May 1948, did not happen in Palestine but rather in (mostly) Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: that's incorrect. Israel didn't exist on the moment of the declaration; they were not officially recognized yet, and their borders were undefined. See our article on the declaration: Eleven minutes after midnight, the United States de facto recognized the State of Israel.[21] This was followed by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's Iran (which had voted against the UN partition plan), Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania, and Uruguay. The Soviet Union was the first nation to fully recognize Israel de jure on 17 May 1948,[22] followed by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ireland, and South Africa.[citation needed] The United States extended official recognition after the first Israeli election, as Truman had promised on 31 January 1949.[23] By virtue of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), Israel was admitted to membership in the United Nations on 11 May 1949.[24]
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: The "Palestine" in "1948 War (Palestine)" refers to the region of Palestine, not a political entity. That is the standard English term for the area encompassing Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Zekelayla (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Israel existed from May 1948, and was recognized by many countries. UN recognition does not make a country (and if it did - we would have to strike many hostoric countries, nor is the specific date of accession particularly relevant). The war, for the most part, occured within Israel and not in the Palestinian territories (at bordering areas there were at most advances that were repulsed, e.g. Jenin and Jewish losses at the old city and Gush Etzion).Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even the US waited until after the war to give official recognition.
You can see from documents such as these how the region was referred to by all countries during the war: [2], [3], [4]
The world talked about the region as Palestine during the war.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It takes time for new terms to catch on, but in modern terms this was in Israel. Likewise English speakers still have not caught up with Czechia for Czech Republic - but once we decide the former is the common name we would us it (and not stick to the prior common name based on the date of the stmt).Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After 15 May, most of the war took place in what would become Israel (but not in the area attributed by the Partition Plan to the Jewish State...). Talking about this : the war started the day after the vote of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. The meaning of the word Palestine here is the same as in the article 1948 Palestine war. And it does not create any problem. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The more reading I do on this question, the more convinced I am that "1948 War" is the best title. It's what all scholars seem to go to when trying to be neutral and accurate. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Benny Morris explains it very good in Righteous Victims, p.191: "The first Arab-Israeli was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, starting at the end of of November 1947 and ending in mid-may 1948...and a conventional war, from May 15, 1948 until early 1949, between the newely founded State of Israel and the armies of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq..."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In 1948 Morris wrote instead: "The 1948 War – called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster), and by the Jews the War of Independence (milhemet ha’atzma’ut), the War of Liberation (milhemet hashihrur) or the War of Establishment (milhemet hakomemiyut) – was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, beginning on 30 November 1947 and ending on 14 May 1948, and a conventional war, beginning when the armies of the surrounding Arab states invaded Palestine on 15 May and ending in 1949"
See Talk:1948 Palestine war/Name - Bolter, your input at the subpage will be very important to help us reach an agreed position on what the scholars and media are really saying. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Benny Morris prefers indeed to talk about the 1948 War. But the problem is that he puts himself in the context of the I-P conflict. Out of this context, it does not work because there was numerous wars in 1948. The most famous being the War in India and Pakistan rather than the one in Palestine. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the need for "1948 War (Palestine)" to disambiguate. Zekelayla (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

loss of their land

POV source

That is a false, or if you like, a misleading edit summary. The page is full of sources supporting an Israeli government or Zionist perspective, and idem for the Palestinians. We do not erase an authoritative source because we dislike the viewpoint of the author. (You do this all too frequently). Philip Mattar is an authoritative source on this topic, and he is not quoting his personal view, but an estimate made by another scholar Richard Fischbach, on the basis of archival study. Fischbach is a leading authority on Palestinian land tenure.
My edit changed 'loss of their land' (land qua Palestine) to 'the land they lost' (the lands in Palestinian possession, tenure indicated by the statistics, and therefore not 'Palestine') and it is not disputed by anyone in the world that Palestinians lost an immense amount of land and personal property. That was a compromise between two opinions in a revert war. Your joining the edit war simple flags the fact that you think there is no ground for compromise. Stating ' loss of what they consider their land' is absurdly POV, in implying that the known and massive parcels of land, housing stock in Palestinian hands until 1948 was only subjectively considered to be Palestinian, when under Mandatory Law much of it was Palestinian: they paid taxes on it. So edit warring to make one POV triumph is unacceptable, and editwarring to elide a compromise that steps round the impasse is even worse.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We already discussed this in the past. As you know, estimates vary widely here, and most of the land that is claimed was in fact registered as state, waqf, and in some cases private land of foreign individuals which tenants farmed. Various farming/grazing (usually in a joint commune) rights is not the same as ownership.Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, the sentence isn't trying to get at percentages - it is simply saying that they were forced from their land - whether "their land" was 90% or 1% isn't the point here. And either way, "my home/my land" is still considered "my home/my land", even if I am renting, and particularly so if my lease is a very long one from the state. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reread closely what I wrote. You ignored it. I'm awaiting an intelligent and focused reply, not sand in the eyes.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an answer. In the meantime to refresh your memory, this is a universally acknowledged statistic.

'a year before the UN adoption of the Resolution, the Arab population of Palestine comprised 68 percent of the total and owned about 85 percent of the land; the Jewish population comprised about one-third of the total and owned about 7 percent of the land.' Abdel Monem Said Aly, ‎Shai Feldman, ‎Khalil Shikaki, Arabs and Israelis: Conflict and Peacemaking in the Middle East, Palgrave Macmillan 2013 p.50

To have for this period the side that possessed 7% of the land deny that the majority which had 85% of the land did not, in mourning the nakba, lose their land is bad enough. To refuse a compromise which, rather than revert, found a fair solution that refers to the catastrophe of losing purchase on the land (not the country) they had is, well, frankly, obscene. I say this because I have the tragedies of the Roman devastation of Vespasian and Hadrian's war in mind. If that has grieved Jews for 2,000 years, those identifying with that history should reach our for a compromise that doesn't rudely dismiss the Palestinian loss as 'subjective' nor assert that the whole of the land was Palestinian. The battle has been one, and its fruits enjoyed, but that doesn't alter historical realities.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. I just realized Shabbat has kicked in, so I won't expect an answer until late tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're 24 hours early - it's still Thursday... Onceinawhile (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus (or source) for the addition of the weasel words "what they consider", added in this edit a few days ago. @Icewhiz, Irondome, and WarKosign: your behavior was edit warring, plain and simple. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fucking accuse me of edit warring, right? Irondome (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irondome, please do not threaten editors. I would ask that you strike this comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bloody accuse me of edit warring then. A compromise wording had been agreed to which I was comfortable with by Nish. Irondome (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I accept that your intention was not to edit war. As a side note on terminology, WP:EDITWAR defines it as "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions... An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." Despite your good intentions, you did in fact revert someone else's revert-of-a-revert-of-a-revert-of-a-revert without coming to the talk page. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification Onceinawhile. I believe you may be aware, that I am not a particularly notorious edit-warrior. If your point, which I believe is to use Talk as a first resort, then it is taken. I apologise for the F bomb. Regards, Irondome (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do acknowledge that Simon - your reputation as a collaborative and fair editor, I mean. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about anticipating Shabbat. Woeful fatiguing day in hospital wards, and I came home thinking that at least there would be consolation in watching the second episode of Rowan Atkinson's impersonation of Maigret, scheduled for Friday night. Just after making my remark, I switched on the boobtube and realized I had to wait another 24 hours, and imagined my error would only confirm rumours of incipient dementia. My option was to get back on line and erase the error, or trust that my pal Simon would imagine I'd just skolled the rest of the virtual bottle of Chivas Regal he sent my way. Simon had his reasons for challenging the original formulation. I might not agree, but I'm not surprised that he now endorses the change I suggested. I've never seen Simon editwar. It's simply not his style. And the expletive, for someone with his record, is normal. I use it all the fucking time even when I'm not being fucked up by tiresome editwarring. Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Their land" is POV, as POV as saying that it's not their land. Nishidani's "the land they lost" looks like a good compromise.“WarKosign” 07:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation

In the Aftermath section, under Demographic consequences, there is a lot of information on where Jews fled to after the war and in what quantities. But the section seems to only provide information on one party of the war. I’m curious as to what the numbers were for the Arab/Palestinian side. Where did they go to and in what numbers? I have no opinion on the conflict, there just seems to be an imbalance of information. Both sides should be represented by a [relatively] equal amount of facts to give new-comers to the topic a more unbiased teaching of the subject. I personally don't know the numbers and facts for each side but think this imbalance creates the image that there were many exiled on one side and not the other. My point here is to create a more wholesome view of the war, one Wikipedia aims to provide (I don't know if this is just my opinion). RebeccaHUNY (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC) RebeccaHUNY[reply]

We already have a separate article on the 1948 Palestinian exodus.: "more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war. Between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished." Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The author believes..."

I removed this statement in the section on Operation Danny: The author believes that Operation Dani, under which the two towns were seized, revealed that no such co-operation existed. There's no document or book referenced in the section, so it seems that "the author" here is the editor of the Wikipedia page itself. I removed it; I don't know if it's important to do some research on whether there was possible joining up of forces or not. --ESP (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name and Structure - a bipartisan proposal to fix this after 12 years of debate

Consensus exists from previous discussions that we have a problem with the structure of this topic: the sub-article on the second phase of the war gets >5x more views than the parent article on the war, due to the ambiguity of the article titles. This ambiguity stems from a twelve-year-long wiki-argument over appropriate titles in which consensus was never achieved, such that today the title of the second phase article is still effectively a synonym of the title of the parent article. Related to this is continuing unhappiness among some editors as to the parent article not having the name Israel in the title (the name of part of the country changed during this conflict).

Summarized here is a history of the articles and the most relevant archived talk page discussions . Between 2001-07 the topic was covered in a single article named 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It was later pointed out that this was inaccurate and inconsistent with scholarly usage (since the pan-Arab part was only the second phase), but editors couldn’t agree on the right name. Many wanted only Palestine in the name, and many others wanted only Israel in the name. Instead, the article was split into two, and a disambiguation article was created, which was later expanded into a full parent article and then unsuccessfully put up for delete/merge. No consensus was found for any of this, and the merge/title issue has bubbled up on the talk pages ever since.

Please could all interested editors share comments here – for anyone new to this 12 year debate, please read the archived discussions on the topic first so we can avoid rehashing old points. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To reach resolution once and for all we need a name for the parent article that both sides can live with. User:Bolter21 and I have agreed what we consider a bipartisan proposal: 1948 war (Palestine-Israel)

If both sides can agree to compromise on this, then we have two options to solve the structural issue:

Discussion

  • Oppose. Any formulation with "Palestine-Israel" is counterfactual. The war was in Palestine (the region). A Palestinian entity(ies), however, arguably didn't exist at all - and if it did - was of minute significance in relation to the various Arab states and actors (some of which - had independent goals and agenda - Jordan being notable in this respect). This is true also in the "civil war" phase (pre-May 1948) where various foreign organized "volunteer" units were active. I do see the merits of a single 1948 War (which redirects here), 1948 War in Palestine (or whatever inflection thereof), or the rather simpler and very common Israeli war of independence.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: please could you remove your bolded !vote. This is a tricky topic and needs discussion rather than voting. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing - I presented a very clear rationale regarding the problem with suggested title - it is counter-factual. I am not opposed to a common prefix and sub-parts - e.g. (1948 War, 1947-May 1948, 1948 War, May 1948-1949) (as the 3 article setup now, with a parent of 1948 War) - however I am also opposed to your suggestion of "phase one" and "phase two" - as the common breakup into phase numbering here is according to the UN ceasefires - which leads to a different numbering (and would also be a possible way to organize this article - with even more child articles).Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Yes I know you are. I simply ask you to remove the single bolded word at the beginning of your post. It is unhelpful, adds nothing, and encourages partisan behavior from others, when what we need to be encouraging is thoughtfulness. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also - 1948 Arab-Israeli war works (as a unifying nomenclature for the different parties opposing Israel), and is fairly common. You are welcome to respond to my line of argument here - rather than discuss formatting of my response. I do welcome your move to have a common prefix for all 3 (if they remain 3), with the parent article not having a suffix. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the problem with the current structure or names, which I think fit reasonably neatly. I get the impression that only a tiny number of editors actually have an issue with the status quo – perhaps the solution is for them to stop flogging this particular deceased equine? Number 57 13:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the problem and I agree that it is a problem. But couldn't it be solved more easily and elegantly by pluralizing this title: 1947–1949 Palestine wars? Srnec (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Many sources treat this is a singular war and not plural (different phases of the same war - as Onceinawhile suggested). Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Our current title is descriptive. Since we clearly title both subpages as wars, the plural title would also be a valid description. Srnec (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the three articles have a common prefix?

There is a consensus in favour of a common prefix. There is a clear consensus among involved editors that the current article names are problematic, and among those editors who do see a problem there is clear support for having a common prefix. Some of the opposition was against changing the "1948 Arab–Israeli War" title, but as this discussion was explicitly not about choosing a specific title for any article, there is nothing here preventing that or something similar being used as either a prefix or suffix if that is the consensus view of a subsequent discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It has been suggested that we break this discussion down into pieces. As a first step, please could editors comment on whether the three articles under discussion here should have a common prefix? Examples of this structure could include:

  • Main article: "[xxxxxx]"; Sub articles: "[xxxxxx] (first phase)" and "[xxxxxx] (second phase)"
  • Main article: "[xxxxxx]"; Sub articles: "[xxxxxx] (civil war phase)" and "[xxxxxx] (Arab–Israeli phase)"
  • Main article: "[xxxxxx]"; Sub articles: "[xxxxxx] (Nov 1947 – May 1948)" and "[xxxxxx] (May 1948 – Jan 1949)"

Views on this overall concept, rather than what the common prefix should be, would be greatly appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Support. While we may disagree on what the XXXX prefix should be and to a lesser degree the suffix (I'm fine with most of the above (I have a quibble with first/second phase in relation to the normal counting of phases per ceasefires), though I would angle to "[xxxxxx] (Nov 1947 – May 1948)" and "[xxxxxx] (May 1948 – JanMar 1949)" which is simply a descriptive range of dates)) - the current title structure of 1947–1949 Palestine war (parent), 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine (child1), 1948 Arab–Israeli War (child2) is somewhat incoherent and often leads our readers (and searchers from outside) into a child article as opposed to the top level article. I don't think we should change our parent + 2 fork structure at this time (though it may make sense in the future to fork May 1948-Mar 1949 into three phases per ceasefires). A more uniform set of titles, leading the reader to the entire top-level article (Nov 1947 - Mar 1949) as a first target makes sense here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. I am supportive of Icewhiz's comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a common prefix for all three articles.Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the current naming format is fine. Number 57 09:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any proposed change will have to go through an RM. I've proposed what I think is the simplest solution to any possible confusion: 1947–1949 Palestine wars. If Onceinawhile would rather a 'common prefix' solution, he should propose a prefix and go thru an RM. I don't see us getting anywhere 'voting' on a principle like this, since people who agree on principle are liable to disagree about the best concrete solution. Srnec (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think 1948 (as the title) is preferable to the descriptive 1947-9. While nominally the war started with the UN declaration in November 1947, the civil war phase didn't really start in earnest until January or even March 1948 (no one would call Nov-Dec a war by itself - it's grouped into the same hostilities however). In regards to 1949 - there was a truce in early January, and the March Operation Uvda was an unopposed maneuver - other than that there was mainly (very important) negotiations). Sources outside of Wikipedia predominately refer to 1948 (this even being the "1948 war"). In regards to a RM - this is a multi-part consensus forming RfC/discussion. If we can agree we should have a common prefix (this stage) - then we would formulate what prefix XXXX should be - there isn't a move proposal with a concrete name yet. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of this. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I cannot agree that we should have a common prefix – any prefix! – over the status quo. We need a concrete proposal. Abandoning the title 1948 Arab–Israeli War seems like it will be an uphill battle. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And I think it may well be "1948 War", "1948 War (civil war phase)" - which has one month in 1947 and five months, including the main period, April-March, in 1948; and "1948 War (Arab-Israeli phase)", as it has 7 months in 1948, and only 1 month of actual fighting in 1949.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A latecomer here so haven't really paid that much attention to all this; at the risk of irrelevancy, how I got here was via the page Arab-Israeli conflict (redirected from Arab-Israeli war) which is the predilection of the popular press. It is true that the 47 events tend to get lost in the wash and probably that was the intent. Still, I think determined readers can figure it all out even if casual readers only get as far as the 48 page (I agree with Srnec that getting rid of that would be an "uphill" affair). Anyway, afaics we are down to 2 articles now, aren't we? Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Srnec: Please could you explain your last sentence further? This article is (or should be) the main article on the more well-known war. As all the archive links above will attest, no serious scholar in the world considers the two parts of this conflict to be separable. The point of this proposal is to bring us back in line. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not even the Israeli MoFA, lol, who have divided it into 4 (unnamed) phases. https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/israels%20war%20of%20independence%20-%201947%20-%201949.aspxSelfstudier (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That division actually is fairly common (dividing the "civil war phase" into an early period (where British control was still strong, and hostilities were more static) and a late period (where British control was very localized to where they did not pull out)), as is the division by the short ceasefires post May 1948.Icewhiz (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srnec Ah, I see. Well, is there some difficulty with adding a hatnote? Not that I think casual users are very likely to land on this page, tbh.I see there was an Rfc here but that it has gone now.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestine_war&oldid=898716343"